Divergent Paths to a Shared Goal: Comparative Legislative Responses to Account Suspension on Digital Labour Platforms

Abstract

With the widespread use of algorithmic management in the platform economy, account suspension has emerged as a core issue affecting working conditions. This article analyses the differing legislative responses adopted by the European Union and Taiwan to address this challenge. The EU approaches this issue from a “data protection” perspective, conceptualizing algorithmic decision-making as a dual issue of working conditions and personal data protection. It clarifies the underlying facts of automated decision-making through mandatory algorithmic transparency obligations to resolve disputes. In contrast, whilst Taiwan has not directly regulated algorithms, it has developed a unique “contractual regulation” approach. Through mandatory contractual
terms formulated by administrative authorities, any unilaterally drafted terms contradicting these mandatory terms are rendered void. Moreover, Taiwan’s new law requires the establishment of an appeal procedure and reverses the burden of proof, requiring platform operators to prove the legitimacy of account suspensions. Although the EU and Taiwan differ in their legislative
approaches, both seek to alleviate information asymmetry between platform operators and platform workers, and to ensure procedural fairness in account suspension decisions.